On 19 jun 2013, at 18:01, Edward Lewis <ed.le...@neustar.biz> wrote:
> Looking back in hindsight, what would help is to have some means for the IETF
> to provide a maintenance vehicle for it's products. Or realize that the
> "waterfall model" that seems to be in place is no longer appropriate. (As if
> you've never heard that before!) The world changes (the new majority) but
> the IETF acts as if "once it's an RFC it is done."
>
> This is an example of an ICANN initiated piece of work that barely got into
> the IETF, the IETF completed it in a way that has benefit beyond ICANN
> (meaning many ccTLDs have adopted it on their own accord), but the IETF
> didn't make it easy and didn't help the deployment. I hope the latter phase
> isn't repeated with the WEIRDS WG and RDAP.
To complete the story for newcomers...I did bring up EPP just because when EPP
was discussed in IETF, I was the responsible Area Director. So I am (a)
definitely aware of the problem, and (b) still annoyed over the result.
If I could travel back in time and try again...
Anyway....
So, the example was very explicitly chosen so that my story was not to blame
any individuals, but the situation which I am both part of an frustrated of.
Patrik
